<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Fla.: &#8220;NRA finds itself on losing side of gun-control bill&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:19:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Rick		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2618</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3302#comment-2618</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Certain races, genders, religions and handicap persons can, at one time or another, be a liability issue for a company....so why can&#039;t the company use the same &quot;individual rights&quot;  doctrine, that out-lawed guns in the parking lot, to eliminate those other liability issues from it&#039;s property.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certain races, genders, religions and handicap persons can, at one time or another, be a liability issue for a company&#8230;.so why can&#8217;t the company use the same &#8220;individual rights&#8221;  doctrine, that out-lawed guns in the parking lot, to eliminate those other liability issues from it&#8217;s property.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: E-Bell		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2617</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[E-Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3302#comment-2617</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I am conflicted on this issue.  On the one hand, I believe that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right to bear arms for personal protection.  We have laws against employers who violate other civil rights - why not the right to keep and bear arms?

On the other hand, I also believe in the right of an employer to make the rules about what can and can&#039;t be done on his business&#039;s property.  If the employee doesn&#039;t like the rules, he can go find work elsewhere.

All that aside, I don&#039;t agree with a criminal penalty for the employer for this type of thing.  If I decide (and I haven&#039;t made up my mind) that the right to keep a gun in my car trumps the right of my boss to say that I can&#039;t have one on his property, my remedy should be civil in nature.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am conflicted on this issue.  On the one hand, I believe that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right to bear arms for personal protection.  We have laws against employers who violate other civil rights &#8211; why not the right to keep and bear arms?</p>
<p>On the other hand, I also believe in the right of an employer to make the rules about what can and can&#8217;t be done on his business&#8217;s property.  If the employee doesn&#8217;t like the rules, he can go find work elsewhere.</p>
<p>All that aside, I don&#8217;t agree with a criminal penalty for the employer for this type of thing.  If I decide (and I haven&#8217;t made up my mind) that the right to keep a gun in my car trumps the right of my boss to say that I can&#8217;t have one on his property, my remedy should be civil in nature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jim Collins		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2616</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Collins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3302#comment-2616</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I would be in favor of laws of this type.  My last place of employment was located in one of the more hazardous areas of town.  I have a conceled carry permit and often locked my weapon in my vehicle because it was against company policy to have it on company property.  It was also a requirement that I park in the company parking lot due to complaints from people in the neighborhood.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  My employer has the obligation to provide for my security at work.  Do they have the obligation for my security once I leave work?  I don&#039;t think so.  As soon as I leave work I am responsible for my own security.  If an employer denied me the ability to provide for my security wouldn&#039;t it mean that he was assuming the liability? It seems to me that they are trading one liability problem for another.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would be in favor of laws of this type.  My last place of employment was located in one of the more hazardous areas of town.  I have a conceled carry permit and often locked my weapon in my vehicle because it was against company policy to have it on company property.  It was also a requirement that I park in the company parking lot due to complaints from people in the neighborhood.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  My employer has the obligation to provide for my security at work.  Do they have the obligation for my security once I leave work?  I don&#8217;t think so.  As soon as I leave work I am responsible for my own security.  If an employer denied me the ability to provide for my security wouldn&#8217;t it mean that he was assuming the liability? It seems to me that they are trading one liability problem for another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
